Leaderboard

Yes, you must distinguish between truth1 and truth2... Just kidding. To be honest, I do not like the substantive 'truth', even less when written as 'Truth'. I think the first thing is to look on which 'objects' the adjective 'true' applies: these are propositions, or complete systems of propositions, where I think about e.g. scientific theories. What it means is that they fit to what they describe. If they do not, they are false. (Or they are meaningless ('colourless green ideas sleep furiously'), or they do not describe a situation unambiguously ('One cannot see light' )) So simply said, one can define 'truth' as the correspondence between a description and reality. So it characterises a relationship between propositions and facts. Which e.g. means the 'Truth' is not out there. We find out if a proposition is true, if we find out that the description corresponds to reality. It is an attribute of propositions ('in there') and reality ('out there'.) I think this meaning of 'true' is simple. But that does not mean that it is easy to find out which propositions (or theories) are true. The two topics should not be confused: what 'true' means on side, and how we find out on the other. I think that some of the examples given are wrong: e.g that about simultaneity in relativity. Are two events simultaneous or not? Well, we know exactly how this depends on from which inertial frame you are observing these events. So we have to amend it to 'for observer A the events are simultaneous, for observer B they are not'. If we know how the perspective has influence on what people observe, then we know that there is nothing to quarrel about. It is as if two people are facing each other, and quarrel about the question if the chair stands at the right or at the left. If you take the perspective in account, the whole problem has vanished. Same with what is true today is false tomorrow. If it was an 'eternal truth' (something like F = mv, like Aristotle thought), and today we know it is false, then it was false all the time. We erroneously took it for true. But truth hasn't changed, because reality did not change. Same with the opposite: reality changes. It is drizzling. It is really true! I see it when I look out of the window! But of course this event is local: where I live, and am now, it is drizzling. It makes no sense to quarrel about the truth of 'it is drizzling', if I do not take the context in account. When I am going somewhere else tomorrow, then it is still true that 'in Switzerland at 17.03.2018 16:30 local time, it is drizzling'. Even if it is beautiful weather at the place where I am tomorrow. Personally, I would prefer to separate some concept pairs: For factual knowledge, 'true' or 'false' apply, because there can be a kind of correspondence between factual propositions and reality For morality, I would use 'right' or 'wrong'. There is no way that science can find out what is morally right or wrong. It can help if facts play a role in a moral decision ('if you do this some people might be killed, if you do that, the risk is negligible'). But this already presupposes that both agree on the norm that killing people is wrong. For aesthetics it becomes more difficult: beauty, interesting, fascinating or ugly, boring, ...The difference with morality is that it has a very strong personal factor. The compulsion to come to an agreement is less than in morality, but do not underestimate the intersubjective character of these aesthetical norms. If these is a discussion on how to renovate the old city centre, it can become very important that people agree. Well, then they are wrong. Truth is not subjective. Beauty has a strong subjective side, morality less, but truth is definitely not subjective.

I think Gees introduced the topic of an elephant. Koty is the blind man holding the trunk, and trying to describe it. Strange is the blind man holding the ears and trying to describe it. Ten oz is the blind man holding a leg and trying to describe it. And Dimreepr is the blind man holding the tail and trying to describe it. Sorry Gees, but you've created a mess. I think you're gonna have to re-state and clarify the OP.

This is everything but funny.

Can I second what Area54 said. And I apologise if I was a bit mean before. If you are worried because you use the same username on other sites, you could ask the mods to change it (I don’t know if they will)

This isn't accurate. If Weight = mass * g then Density can't both equal: mass * g / volume (inaccurate) and mass / volume (accurate)

Weight is force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight [math]W=m*a[/math] and on Earth it's [math]W=m*g[/math] Different planets have different a (acceleration), thus different weight. (actually, to complicate it even more, a is not constant but depends on distance to center of mass, which is close to center of planet)

Let me check i have this right. The first column is risk of contracting measles in 2000 - how is this calculated, is it how many get measles per 1000, because one country had 200 and that sounds an awful lot. The second column is the percent change in measles vaccination uptake between 2000 and 2015. The third column is the change in risk of contracting measles between 2000 and 2015. It's a strange way of looking at relationships. Exactly what hypothesis do you want to test - there may be a easier way of looking at the data.

I have never heard anyone else say that truth is as changeable as the wind or that it is subjective and unreliable. Your examples don't show that truth, or right and wrong are arbitrary and decided on a random basis. They show that, not surprisingly, these are complex ideas that have to be tuned to the specific situation. The fact that some people think that truth is relative, not absolute (or, perhaps more accurately, it can be relative) does not necessarily imply that people don't trust truth.

Funny, I was having a long conversation with myself yesterday on this while watching some insignificant movie. I agree with all the premises you layed out in your above post, I would add that however un-empathetic it sounds, the truth is also impractical in many life situations. It is the main reason that I get in trouble when I do when I should have lied or at least keep the truth to myself. I don’t know how somebody can say that the truth is subjective, that is a dead end logic in my opinion, I can agree that it is unreliable though. There is also so many shades of lying and tellig the truth, you can blatantly lie without remorse which is the sociopathic end of the scale or you can empathetically lie about something which saves someone pain which is at the other end of the scale - same with the truth. I think that this is one of those subjects which is so diversly subjective that its impossible to reach any decent consensus when trying to find objectivity which everyone can agree on. The never ending quest of not being an a**hole is on for everybody.

The elevation difference would only have a significant effect if the higher level placed the panels clear of some (partial) shading object such as another building or trees etc.

HI all, OK, I am here to question some science that my son brought home the other night, He wasn't sure how to do it so i sat down with him and went through it, and he got all his answers Wrong.. but as far as i'm concerned they are not wrong, and from what i've read on the internet Science is wrong.. Let me explain The homework, was a list of planets, with their gravitational pulls, he had to mark down his weight (4 stone 6) and then in the first two columns put his mass, and weight on each planet. Now. he got it wrong because apparently according to Science, his mass is the same on all planets (this is also what his teacher said), But i;m afraid to say it is Not. Let me explain. To work out the mass of an object, you take its density and multiply it by its volume, this gives you the mass. now, to work out your density you take your weight and divide by your volume now since your weight is effected by gravitational pull, your mass on earth and mars is completely different. since your weight is different. so my question is, How can your mass be identical no matter what planet your on, when your mass is effected by your weight, and your weight is effected by the gravitational pull of the planet? please if i'm missing something here, then feel free to enlighten me, but as far as i'm concerned, the teacher and science is wrong.

True Pi = 729/232 "If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.” Nikola Tesla